## Facts

- Terry Lynn Katt was charged with multiple counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving two children, DD (age seven) and AD (age five), based on alleged sexual penetration of a child under thirteen.
- A child-protective-services worker, Angela Bowman, interviewed DD at his elementary school after an anonymous report of physical abuse by the children’s mother.
- During the interview, while identifying household members, DD spontaneously stated that Katt was doing “nasty stuff” to him.
- Bowman questioned DD about what he meant; DD initially appeared guarded but provided details, describing Katt entering the children’s bedroom, removing DD’s clothing, and getting on top of him.
- Bowman lacked interview tools specifically for sexual-abuse disclosures and asked DD to demonstrate what he described.
- At trial, DD was unavailable or ineffective in providing a full coherent account; Bowman’s testimony about DD’s out-of-court statements became central evidence.
- The trial court ruled DD’s statements did not satisfy a requirement of Michigan’s tender-years exception (MRE 803A) but admitted them under the residual exception (MRE 803(24)) after finding adequate trustworthiness and necessity.
- A jury convicted Katt of three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a child-victim’s hearsay statements that do not qualify under MRE 803A may nevertheless be admitted under the residual hearsay exception, MRE 803(24).
2. Whether DD’s statements to the child-protective-services worker had “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” sufficient for admission under MRE 803(24).
3. Whether admitting the statements under MRE 803(24), given the child’s limited in-court testimony, was consistent with fairness and confrontation-related concerns.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
- The court held that failure to satisfy MRE 803A does not categorically bar admission under MRE 803(24).
- The court held MRE 803(24) may admit statements that narrowly miss a categorical exception, if the residual exception’s requirements are strictly satisfied.
- The court concluded DD’s statements to Bowman were properly admitted because they were trustworthy, material, more probative than reasonably available alternatives, and their admission served the interests of justice with appropriate notice.

## Legal Principles

- MRE 803(24) permits admission of hearsay not covered by enumerated exceptions if the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is offered on a material fact, is more probative than other reasonably obtainable evidence, serves the purposes of the evidence rules and the interests of justice, and is preceded by adequate notice.
- The existence of a more specific hearsay exception (including MRE 803A) does not, by itself, make MRE 803(24) unavailable for statements within the same general subject area.
- Trustworthiness under MRE 803(24) is evaluated from the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement, including factors such as spontaneity, absence of suggestive questioning, the child’s demeanor and specificity, the professional context of the interview, and lack of apparent motive to fabricate.
- Necessity and probative value matter: residual hearsay may be admitted when it is the clearest account and no comparably probative evidence can reasonably be obtained, particularly where the declarant’s in-court testimony is limited.
- Fair-trial concerns are addressed through the reliability screening required by MRE 803(24) and adversarial testing of the reporting witness through cross-examination.

## Conclusion

The court upheld admission of a child’s out-of-court sexual-abuse disclosure under the residual hearsay exception even though it did not meet the tender-years exception, because the statement satisfied MRE 803(24)’s demanding requirements of reliability, materiality, necessity, and justice-oriented purposes.


People v. Katt, 662 N.W.2d 12 (Mich. 2003)